Well, it’s been a few weeks since I first posed some questions that had been troubling me regarding the Lisbon Treaty and the forthcoming referendum in Ireland. I’m very grateful to all those who took the time to respond and who discussed the treaty, without acrimony, here on this blog. It’s refreshing to see a discussion of European politics that doesn’t end in a slanging match (or maybe I just spent too long in the UK).

Anyways, despite all that, I was still rather confused by the whole thing. The text of the treaty is — in my view — quite deliberately opaque. You can download the PDF here, but I warn you there’s very little point. You see, huge chunks of the text of the treaty (the majority, in fact) actually don’t state very much at all. Rather, they list amendments to existing treaties which are themselves scattered widely and not always easy to track down and cross-reference. Take this (entirely representative) example…

ARTICLE 2

The articles of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, of the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank, and of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, as they are amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, shall be renumbered in accordance with the tables of equivalences set out in the annex to this Protocol. Cross-references to articles of those protocols which appear therein shall be adapted in accordance with the tables.

References to recitals of the protocols set out in point 1 of Article 1, or to articles of those protocols, including to paragraphs thereof, as renumbered or rearranged by this Protocol, and which references figure in other protocols or acts of primary legislation shall be adapted in accordance with this Protocol. Such adaptations shall, if necessary, also apply in the event that the provision in question has been repealed.

References to recitals and articles, including to paragraphs thereof, of the protocols set out in point 1 of Article 1, as amended by the provisions of this Protocol and which figure in other instruments or acts, shall be understood as references to recitals and articles, including to paragraphs thereof, of those protocols as renumbered or rearranged in accordance with this Protocol.

Treaty of Lisbon / Protocols / English Language Version / Page 78

From what I can tell, this is a set of instructions for renumbering various paragraphs in several other treaties and protocols. Now, there are clearly plenty of issues on which it is appropriate to consult the people, or vote in parliament. But the paragraph numbering system used within the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, just isn’t one of them.

This becomes problematic when you’re asked to vote on a treaty that contains page after page after page (after page) of this stuff interspersed with genuinely meaningful clauses and protocols. By burying the relevant information beneath a heavy blanket of bureaucratic fluff, one can be forgiven for wondering what exactly is being hidden from the voter.

I mean, it’s worth pointing out that the section quoted above appears to refer to “point 1 of Article 1” of The Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (PDF file) which itself is no more than a reference to yet another treaty…

ARTICLE 1
1.1 The European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and the European Central Bank (ECB) shall be established in accordance with Article 8 of this Treaty; they shall perform their tasks and carry on their activities in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of this Statute.

The Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank

And I am assuming (because it’s not explicitly stated) that “this Treaty” refers to “the Treaty establishing the European Community”. So to properly understand this tiny section of the Lisbon Treaty which appears to refer to something as genuinely insignificant as a paragraph numbering system, a person needs to track down and cross-reference it with at least two other separate treaties (in fact, it’s more than two).

This may seem like an insignificant point. And I’m well aware that such “bureaucratic housekeeping” is required when complex treaties are amended. But when you hear that somewhere within the 294 pages of the Lisbon Treaty is a clause that denies Ireland representation on the European Commission for five out of every fifteen years (one third of the time). And given that the European Commission is tasked with such minor issues as European Tax Harmonisation and European Energy Policy, I think you can be forgiven for becoming suspicious of the motives of those who decided to bury such important details within a blizzard of administrative irrelevance.

But being suspicious of the motives of the authors of the treaty still wouldn’t be enough to make me vote against something I don’t really understand (as opposed to merely abstaining). After all, when it comes to those who have sought and achieved positions of power, my default position is one of suspicion. Don’t get me wrong, it kind of goes without saying that some politicians are better than others. Bertie Ahern for instance — for all his faults… his many, many faults — would still get my vote if he was standing against Joseph Goebbels in an election. But that doesn’t mean I’d trust Bertie to look after my wallet, let alone the nation’s tax revenue.

The Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

Here though, we unearth something I am more than willing to vote against. The first thing to point out is that The Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (link) is an existing treaty which came into effect in 1958. This was prior to Ireland joining the EU, but when we did join (the EEC as it was then) in 1973 we nonetheless technically became signatories to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

I’m more than willing to cut the voters of 1958 and 1973 some slack with regards to nuclear energy. The issues of sustainability, Climate Change and the overwhelming importance of energy policy weren’t part of popular consciousness back then. The arguments against nuke power, though just as valid then as they are now, were far from well-understood.

This is no longer the case.

The simple fact is that whatever else the Lisbon Treaty may say; whatever good it may do; if given the opportunity, I am compelled to vote against a treaty that explicitly promotes nuclear power as a central pillar of European energy policy. I want Ireland to be at the forefront of renewable energy development. I want us to be vocal advocates of wind and wave and tidal (and solar in southern Europe) and to be at the vanguard of the anti-nuclear tendency. A vote for Lisbon is a vote against this position.

Which means I’m forced into a corner I didn’t really want to be in. But every Irish vote for Lisbon is a vote against a sustainable European energy policy. So I must use my own vote to counteract one of those. I’m voting ‘No’ to Lisbon, and I urge other Irish voters to do the same.

7 responses to "Return to Lisbon (with a "No!")"

Brief afterword: It is worth pointing out that I remain unconvinced by most of the arguments put forward by the ‘No’ campaign. In particular, the claims that Irish neutrality will be compromised, and that a significant loss of democratic representation will be suffered by the citizens of Ireland — and Europe in general — do not appear particularly valid to me. I’m also extremely frustrated by the fact that ‘Yes’ campaigners appear either unwilling or unable to list a single negative effect of the Treaty, while ‘No’ campaigners cannot list a single positive. To me this indicates that they simply don’t understand the treaty themselves, but are nonetheless willing to repeat, as fact, an interpretation which chimes with their own personal prejudice.

This is not a healthy attitude towards policy making, and those ‘No’ campaigners who describe the treaty as “undemocratic” need to examine exactly what they mean by that word. For it seems to me, that mere repetition of the interpretations of others about a subject one doesn’t truly understand, is hardly the basis for any kind of democracy worth caring about.

All the same, I am utterly convinced that voting against a treaty that promotes nuclear power is the right thing to do, and the positives within the treaty (of which there are several) do not outweigh this important negative.

A: The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding in the Treaty and the ECJ will have the job of interpreting it, making the Irish Supreme Court subordinate to it in huamn rights. This is especially so because of Article 21.10 (soon to be 29.11) of the Irish Constitution, which states that all EU legal acts and decisions are constitutional.

B: Our voting weight on the Council of Ministers falls from 2% to 0.9%. The fall in our voting weight is admitted in today’s Irish Times.

C: Article 28A is a mutual defence clause undermining our neutrality.

D: Article 93, outlawing “distortions of competition” can be interpreted by the ECJ as outlawing out 12.5% corporate-tax rate.

E: Why are we losing even more national-vetoes, namely energy, tourism and sport, culture, and the statutes of the ECJ/ECB/EIB? We have lost enough of our sovereignty.

F: The supposed new ‘powers’ for national parliaments are toothless. 9 national parliaments will be able to give non-binding advice to the COmmision to reconsider proposed EU laws. There is also a ‘citizens initiative’ where a petition of 1 million people will be able to ask the European Parliament to debate a measure. Again – non-binding and therefore a figleaf.

a federal eu superstate, one labour mp gisela stuart puts it in simple terms the
eu constitution and copycat treaty have that many holes in it it would’nt hold
water? will the people in ireland give the dictator jose barroso eu president his answer. if they vote no they will pay,something does’nt smell right,its like
Mcbottle who reneged on the promised referendum in 2005.blair its a matter of trust we must give the people what we promised.i hope its a no vote,other wise
the future looks very bleak for all of us.
yours sincerely
j cross

I agree that it’s important to reject the treaty, FutureTaoiseach, so we’re on the same page as far as that goes. But as I stated above, a lot of the points being made by the ‘No’ campaign simply don’t strike me as all that convincing. Let’s take the points you list:

A. I agree there are some problematic issues with this. However, in practice, I would expect the overall effect to be positive (the influence of the EU in this area is likely to be a socially liberal one, which is a good thing in my view).

B. Indeed. And your problem with that is? Given that the recent expansion of the EU has meant that our population is now 0.9% of the total, as opposed to 2%, any attempt to prevent our voting rights being adjusted accordingly is utterly undemocratic. Now, I’m not a democrat myself, but the ‘No’ campaign has been hugely vocal about the dangers that Lisbon poses to European (and Irish) democracy. Either you’re in favour of fair and democratic representation, or you ain’t. But you can’t have it both ways. Failure to reduce the Irish voting weight is clearly and demonstrably undemocratic.

C. I’d disagree with that. There’s plenty to object to in Article 28A, and I agree it could be seen as something of a slippery slope. But again, in practice, the effect on Irish neutrality is likely to be negligible. It’s worth remembering that paragraph 7 of that article includes the line: This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. This provides a clear get-out clause for states that (a) wish to retain their neutrality, and (b) wish to remain members of NATO and base their defence policy on that organisation.

D. It can be interpreted that way, but is unlikely to be until tax-harmonisation treaties get established. And again, it’s not a reason why I personally would vote against Lisbon, given that I think a low corporate-tax rate is an inherently bad thing.

E. Yes and no. We haven’t lost a shred of our ‘sovereignty’. The Irish Republic can withdraw completely from the EU at any time and choose to negotiate a series of individual treaties with the bloc rather than be a full member. In the context of a supranational organisation like the EU, that’s pretty much the definition of absolute sovereignty. On the other hand, there are indeed numerous issues on which it makes sense to retain responsibility at national level even within a supranational organisation. The loss of certain vetoes makes that a more difficult task, and may well prove to be a retrograde step.

F: Couldn’t agree more. The notion of an official citizen’s petition system that has no legally binding power whatsoever is frankly insulting. As for the powers of national parliaments within the European system, it seems unlikely to me that this treaty will end up making a huge amount of practical difference in that area. But again, I can appreciate the ‘slippery slope’ argument.

—–

J. Cross, I’m really not sure that this treaty will make a huge difference with regards to the levels of bleakness contained in our collective future. I’m actually somewhat in favour of a strong European government as I believe certain environmental issues can only be adequately dealt with at a global level, and a strong European government provides us with a voice loud enough to be heard at that level.

I’m not suggesting that the EU has had any genuinely positive or progressive influence in this sphere as yet. But if we are to have such influence, then the tools need to be available to us.

That said, the Lisbon Treaty with its disastrous energy policies is very much a step in the wrong direction. And so it should be opposed.

Good hearted women and men of ireland. Please do our european continent a favor and vote NO to the lisbon treaty.

I ask your help for us all from germany. Most people in the 27 country’s are NOT AGAINST the european union but AGAINST an EU of the big businesses. Against an antidemocratic if not to say a faschist EU which do not care about their people. Wich do not care about our children and which do not care about peace.

They only care about foreign ressources which they want to “secure” for europe by means of war if neccessary.

They will send our children into dead, just to save their profits.

Again, good people of ireland. Remind your history as a strong and free nation and as well remind your responsibility for every other european nation who don’t have the opportunity to vote about their future.

Leave a Reply

A moderation system is in place to prevent spam. The first comment you post is held in a queue until I approve it. So it may be a short while before you see it on the site. All subsequent comments using that name / email will be approved automatically and appear immediately.